Neat, very fun question, Wolf! Well, first you need that back-to-back which, here, would be the case as well. And then those significant additives from '90-thru-'93 to hold things over in the meantime.Brian wolf wrote: ↑Sat Feb 15, 2025 1:23 pm From 1988-1997, couldnt some people consider the 49ers a dynasty? They did change head coaches and quartebacks but in that 10 yr-span they went to 7 NFC Championship games with 3 SB wins. Maybe the championship game losses and gap between SB wins subdued the "dynasty" thinking despite consistent success?
If we are going strictly by since-'81 instead of since-'88, you either see their Dynasty ending after the Esteemed '89 campaign with '94 being distant-enough hence a..."one more for good measure", or you see their NFCCG-losses in '90, '92, and '93 ('91 arguably being the best non-playoff team since the merger) as being a reasonable 'holding-the-fort-in-the-meantime' especially considering that not a single one of those defeats (Parcells/Jimmy) were AT ALL (at all) a disgrace whatsoever! I lean all too heavy on the latter! Not just that, but I personally extend things one more year to 1995 with the obvious/discussed here MANY times 'coulda-shoulda'-ness of it all!
'96-and-beyond? Just "real good" at best all of the way until Harbaugh.
1989 is the key separator between Joe Gibbs and Bill Walsh, technically at least (though maybe I'd still place Bill as better than Joe anyway though, yes, not by a lot whatsoever). Both won three non-consecutive Super Bowls. Yes, again with Gibbs doing so with three different non-Canton QBs. But that '89 campaign under Seifert...yes, we all know what's said next! Sure-enough if Gibbs retires after '91 and then his replacement wins another in DC in '92, Joe would be seen in the same exact vein thus 'treated' as a 4-time winner.
Who knows? As I've suggested prior just for the heck of it, maybe (just...maybe) Walsh would have been 'spent' had he stayed on in '89 even if only for that just one year (back again in '90 and ready to kick-the-door-down once again). Maybe the new voice and style in Seifert along with Matt MIllen being brought in to add even-further wrinkle to the toughness already in SF under Lott & Co was what made their Esteemed 1989 what it actually was.
But it's such an unpopular theory along with me not totally buying in as well. "Not totally" in that Seifert should still get credit. He was the Captain of that very '89 Ship (and, damn it! SHOULD HAVE been carried off the field - come on)! Many playoff-caliber HCs wouldn't have succeeded if Eddie handed either of them the keys after '88. But Walsh still gets more credit for '89 for me thus I 'treat' him like a 4-time/back-to-back World Champ!
Like I said a million times, there's only ONE (no pun; yes, that's a hint) reason why George Seifert is not in the Hall! A top-tier DC before he even ever HC'd! Just a simple 5-11 finish in 2001 instead and...
Same with Switzer (NO, not he being in Canton). Maybe (again, just maybe) Big D despite Aikman's assertions (yes, a very Important opinion from #8 nonetheless) would have needed a new voice after that repeat in order to tack on a third Ring. As I've said before, maybe winning it again in '95 could be seen in the same light as 'laid-back' Bob Lemon taking over for...'Billy Martin' Billy Martin in 'the Bronx Zoo' midst of '78 and winning yet again. Only, in this case, the extra Title would take two full seasons instead of a half season. Numerous playoff-caliber HCs would not have won that other Ring had Jerry handed the keys to either one after '93.
And that '94 campaign, "sloppy" or not, was SUCH a SB-caliber one! It's just that, simply, someone had to lose that "real" 1994 Super Bowl! I mean, come on, who on God's Green Earth thinks that San Diego beats Dallas, lol? Okay, not as lopsided scoreboard-wise, but I bet no tease (if you even want to actually call it that) early on with SD driving down-field, taking 7-min off the clock, to make it 14-7 courtesy of the Natrone Bomb. No, Big D probably goes up 24-0 before SD even scores that TD, with the final then being 31-7 (oh, wait a minute! SF actually beat SD by "just" 23! Go figure).
But this, also, is a very unpopular opinion. And I'm also onboard with that unpopularity. Yes, give Barry credit for that '95 win. Again, I would have loved to have seen him take over a bad NFL and see how he builds it from scratch. I like his chances! But DO "treat" Jimmy as a 3-time World Champ in the NFL thus how can one, IMO, reject his HOF induction (but, yes, Buddy Parker should have then entered Long Ago). My 'what-if' take is simple. And I've also already, numerous times, opined this...Jimmy either wins 5-straight, or slightly more likely (after all, three-peats are SO hard) does a simple Gretsky's Oilers - win two, take a break for just a year, then win two more thus Favre never winning one (ouch! don't like that).